Dear Kerry:
I sincerely thank you for taking the time to respond and for the interesting suggestion. It goes hand in hand with ny first guess: producing several smaler meetings instead of one BIG one. But then... what's the point of using OST if it isn't usable with huge groups?
I see OST as a divergence-convergence movement. In the beginning, everybody goes his/her way, hoping for more people to come along. The organization de-organizes itself to become something new, to evolve along unknown paths. From this so called "chaos", a new order emerges, and this new order is a convergence: we have explored new ways to be an organization, and now we come together again with our conversations, and conclusions, and dissensions, and put in common the new knowledge we have generated. Without this, OST will be just a cathartic movement, and nothing more. It's not about control, it's about building something new from the chaos.
If we se it this way, I think, my best bet is to open the space with the whole system in a room and to have the divergence process done there, but to renounce to converge at the end of that meeting. The convergence could be done later on, after everybody has received and -hopefully- read a copy of the proceedings. Then we can vote to prioritize items, and maybe meet again to voice the results.
What do you think?
Greetings,
Johann
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Download today it's FREE! * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
